Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: TOAST usage setting

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: TOAST usage setting
Date: 2007-05-31 09:01:14
Message-ID: 87d50hicyt.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:

> "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>
>> shared_buffers again was 32MB so all the data was in memory.
>
> The case where all the data is in memory is simply not interesting. The cost
> of TOAST is the random access seeks it causes. You seem to be intentionally
> avoiding testing the precise thing we're interested in.

Also, something's not right with these results. 100,000 tuples --even if all
they contain is a toast pointer-- won't fit on a single page. And the toast
tables should vary in size depending on how many toast chunks are created.

-- 
  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2007-05-31 09:11:30
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make large sequential scans and VACUUMs work in a limited-size
Previous:From: Grant FinnemoreDate: 2007-05-31 08:59:14
Subject: Backend crash during explain

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group